Arizona Juvenile Prison Watch

A community resource for monitoring, navigating, surviving, and transforming the juvenile justice system in Arizona.

Search This Blog

Loading...

JULY 21, 2011: Peg's Blogs on Hiatus...

As many friends and regular readers know, I've been dealing with a lot in my personal life, lately, while my workload has continued to grow. Rest assured that I'm in the best of company, and getting by with a little help from my friends. Still, I need to take a break and focus on centering myself. That means this site will be neglected even more than it has been.

Until I'm able to get a grip on blogging regularly and thoughtfully again here (or until someone else steps in to anchor the site), I encourage people to check out Carl Toersbijns' blog (he's a former Deputy Warden for the AZ Department of Corrections, and while not an abolitionist, he's a strong advocate for the prisoners with mental illness, and for broad-based prison reform in AZ). You may also want to drop in on Middle Ground Prison Reform's site for news.

In the United States, dozens of 13- and 14-year-old children have
been sentenced to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole after
being prosecuted as adults. While the United States Supreme Court
recently declared that death by execution is unconstitutional for
juveniles, young children continue to be sentenced to die in prison with
very little scrutiny or review. EJI has documented 73 cases where
children 14 years of age or younger have been condemned to death in
prison. Almost all of these kids currently lack legal representation
and in most of these cases the propriety and constitutionality of their
extreme sentences has never been reviewed.

Most of the sentences imposed on these children were mandatory: the
court could not give any consideration to the child’s age or life
history. Some of the crimes charged against these children do not
involve homicide or even injury. Many of these children were convicted
for offenses where older teenagers or adults were involved and primarily
responsible for the crime. Nearly two-thirds of these adolescents are
children of color.

EJI has launched a litigation campaign to challenge death in prison
sentences imposed on young children. We are also working to increase
public awareness in order to reform policies that reflect a lack of
perspective and hope for young children.

News

In People v. Caballero, the California Supreme Court
unanimously struck down the 110-years-to-life sentence imposed on
Rodrigo Caballero for nonhomicide offenses when he was 16 years old.
The court concluded that the sentence, which required Caballero to serve
more than 100 years before being eligible for parole, denied him the
opportunity to “demonstrate growth and maturity” to try to secure his
release, in contravention of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Graham v. Florida.

Editorials across the country have expressed support for last Monday's U.S. Supreme Court decision in Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs holding that mandatory life-without-parole sentences for all children 17 or younger convicted of homicide are unconstitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court today issued an historic ruling in Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs
holding that mandatory life-without-parole sentences for all children
17 or younger convicted of homicide are unconstitutional. Kuntrell
Jackson and Evan Miller, sentenced to life in prison without parole at
14, are now entitled to new sentencing hearings. Today’s ruling will
affect hundreds of individuals whose sentences did not take their age or
other mitigating factors into account.

Caril Ann Fugate following her arrest in 1958 at age 14. Register file photo.

The Des Moines Register this week detailed the story of Caril
Ann Fugate, a 14-year-old girl whose 18-year-old boyfriend involved her
in a sensationalized series of crimes in Nebraska in 1958. Despite
being sentenced to life in prison, Caril became a model prisoner and her
sentence was commuted. She was released after serving 18 years, worked
as a medical aide, has never run afoul of the law, and is now a married
retiree.

In 1977, a 14-year-old mentally disabled girl was charged with
second-degree murder after setting a fire that tragically killed two
people in Chester, Pennsylvania. She was tried in adult court and
sentenced to die in prison. EJI is now challenging her sentence and
seeking relief for Trina Garnett, whose story is profiled in this
month's issue of The Nation.

Here is the 2011 Legislative Report Card so you can see how your
legislators voted on the issues important to Arizona's children and
families in last year's sessions and see below for our policy priorities
for this year's session.

1. A State Budget That Works for Arizona Families
- CAA supports a budget that promotes children's health, education, and
security. This year's budget should make current investments with
long-term payoffs and should lay the foundation for balancing the budget
in the future when the temporary sales tax expires and new tax cuts
phase in.

Update: The Governor and Legislative
leadership have offered their budget plans. The Legislative budget has
passed through both the House (bills HB2852-HB2861) and Senate (bills
SB1523-SB1532) Appropriations Committees. Read our analysis of the
plans.

2.Child Protective Services Reform -
Arizona can take action to better protect children from abuse and
neglect. CAA supports recommendations from Governor Brewer's Child
Safety Task Force to improve the coordination and collaboration in CPS
investigations, especially those involving crimes; increase
cross-training for CPS staff and other multidisciplinary partners;
improve the CPS Hotline so that reports can be taken efficiently; and
enhance support for foster families. The most important reform is to
strengthen the CPS workforce with stronger supervision, lower caseloads,
more technological and staff support, and better salaries.Update: CAA supports HB2794, it passed through the committee on
Rules and is scheduled to be heard in the Committee of the Whole on
Tuesday, February 28th. CAA also supports the striker in bill SB1187
which passed unanimously through the Senate on February 27th and is now
awaiting to be heard in committee in the House.

3.Stop TABOR -
The so-called Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR) would lock state
lawmakers into a flawed mathematical formula for future budget
decisions. Because population growth and inflation alone simply don't
match the reality of Arizona, TABOR would endanger all state priorities,
including education, prisons and public safety, economic development,
and health care. CAA opposes HCR2032 and SCR1030, they are the most
dangerous of the TABOR bills out there.

Update: CAA opposes SCR1030, one of the most dangerous
TABOR bills proposed, it passed the Senate by a 17-13 vote and has been
transmitted to the House and assigned to the Appropriations Cmte.

SCR1030 Would Enact TABOR's Faulty Formulas fact sheet

We are delighted to report that HCR2032, a bill CAA opposes, was
DEFEATED by a 4-6 vote in the House Appropriations Committee on February
23rd.

CAA opposes TABOR rule (Rule 38) proposed by Some House
Republicans. The rule would prevent the House from adopting a budget
outside of the TABOR formula. This is a backdoor attempt to pass
something that can't stand up to the regular democratic process. Rule 38
had been scheduled for presentation to House membership on Monday
January 30, but was pulled and has not resurfaced.

4.Successful Systems for Health Care Coverage - Arizona has
the chance to shape our health care future as we make decisions about
how to implement federal health reform. Arizonans expect our leaders to
update health care enrollment opportunities to keep costs low, help
people find and compare health plans, and improve the health of children
and families.

5.Oppose Unfair and Unbalanced Tax Schemes - It makes no sense to
adopt new tax cuts and tax credits until there is a plan for balancing
the budget after the sales tax expires and last year's "Jobs Bill" tax
cuts kick in. Without offsetting revenue, any new tax cuts or tax
credits will make the drop off the fiscal cliff higher and more
dangerous for children and families.

6.Quality Early Education for Reading Success - Reading
proficiency in third grade is a key benchmark for later school success
and for Arizona's economic competitiveness. Based on national standards,
three out of four Arizona fourth graders read below proficient levels.
Yet lawmakers have cut school budgets and wiped out state funding for
the strategies that help more children learn to read -- full-day
Kindergarten, quality preschool, and child care assistance for qualified
working families. CAA supports these strategies and parent involvement
to bring more children reading success. We also support Governor
Brewer's proposal to appropriate $50 million to elementary schools for
reading specialists and curriculum to help struggling readers catch up.

Update:
CAA supports SB1258, as amended, strengthens the Move on When Reading
Law, by among other things, requiring school districts to offer at least
one intervention and one remedial strategy for pupils with
deficiencies, and to notify parents about these options. Move on When
Reading prohibits promoting to Fourth grade children who read far below
grade level at the end of grade three, beginning in 2014. SB1258 passed
unanimously in the House Education committee, but has not moved any
further.

7.Bring Back KidsCare - For ten years,
working families were able to purchase affordable health insurance for
their children through KidsCare. But two years ago, short-sighted budget
cuts froze enrollment, leaving tens of thousands of children without
coverage, forgoing millions of federal dollars that could be helping
Arizona's economy, and putting more families in financial crisis. With a
very modest investment, Arizona can Bring Back KidsCare so all children
can be healthy and ready to learn.Lifting the KidsCare Freeze is a Smart InvestmentUpdate:
CAA supports HB2235, legislation that would Bring Back KidsCare, but
leadership refused to schedule a hearing for this important bill.

8.Smart Corrections Policy -
More than a decade of research shows that youth who are prosecuted in
the adult system have higher rates of recidivism and worse outcomes than
youth treated in the juvenile justice system. To improve public safety,
more decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis before Arizona
youth are prosecuted in the adult criminal system. CAA supports
legislation to update the definition of "chronic felony offender" so
that fewer youth would be automatically prosecuted as adults. For youth
who have been charged with non-violent or less serious offenses, county
prosecutors would have the discretion to bring charges in adult court or
juvenile court.Update: CAA supports SB1439 was introduced in the Senate and
assigned to the Judiciary committee. Leadership has decided not to
schedule a hearing for this bill that would improve our juvenile
corrections system.
9.Open the Gate to Schoolyards - Children who are physically active
are healthier and more successful in school. Today, too many children
are getting too little exercise. School playgrounds and fields can give
children a place to play and run right in their neighborhood. But many
schoolyards are off limits after school and on weekends. CAA supports
SB1059, a simple clarification in the liability laws to encourage more
schools to open their playgrounds and fields to after-school play.

Update: CAA supports SB1059 has passed both the House and Senate and was recently signed by the Governor.

10.Help Grandparents Raising the Next Generation - 70,000
children in Arizona are being raised by their grandparents. Many
grandparents face challenges with housing, transportation, child care
and after-school care, and health care for themselves and their
grandkids. A range of recent state budget cuts in Arizona have made it
harder for grandparents to get basic assistance to keep their
grandchildren thriving and their families intact. CAA supports SB1098 to
provide grandparents with basic financial assistance.Update: CAA supports SB1098 passed unanimously in the Senate
Public Safety and Human Services committee on Wednesday, January 25, but
was never scheduled by Senator Don Shooter for the next step, which
would have been to be heard in the Senate Appropriations committee.

kim smith

arizona daily star (02/06/12)

A Tucson teenager originally charged as an adult with attempted
murder of his adoptive father has been transferred into the
juvenile system.

Pima County Superior Court Judge Deborah Bernini ruled Wednesday
that the 15-year-old would be better off in the juvenile system
because of mental-health services not available in the adult
system.

The boy was 14 last October when Pima County sheriff's officials
said he and his then-17-year-old girlfriend, Angela Swink, decided
to run away together after killing his adoptive parents. Swink is
scheduled to enter a plea agreement today. The adoptive parents
were in the process of terminating their parental rights, and the
teen was living in foster care.

Officials said the boy attacked the dad from behind, choked him
and tried to cut his throat. The dad overcame the boy and called
911.

In her ruling, Bernini noted the father didn't require medical
treatment and the mom wasn't home. The father grabbed the knife
from the teen, put away his groceries and offered both teens ice
cream, Bernini wrote. He called 911 from a convenience store and
waited with the pair for deputies.

The boy was removed from his teenage mother while he was a baby
and lived in seven foster homes before his adoptive parents took
him in, Bernini noted.

The couple, who were 57 and 70 when they adopted the teen,
home-schooled him until he was 12, and he failed his first year of
public school.

The teen has been arrested for assaulting the mother, but "both
incidents involve documented physical assaults committed against
him by (the adoptive mother)," Bernini said.

"The records are replete with documented physical and mental
abuse of the defendant at the hands of his adoptive parents,"
Bernini wrote. She also noted he'd been hospitalized twice for
suicidal thoughts.

After the teen was placed back in foster care and a
special-education class, "his behavior showed dramatic
improvement," Bernini said. She said police records indicate Swink
was the instigator.

By transferring the teen into the juvenile system, his
dependency and criminal cases can be handled by the same judge.

On StarNet: Follow the news and events at Pima County's
courthouses in Kim Smith's blog, At the Courthouse, at
azstarnet.com/courthouse

Here's what they're doing with juvenile corrections in California - Governor Brewer has been wanting to dismantle the AZ Department of Juvenile Corrections and privatize more services, too. I'm all for abolishing the entire criminal justice system and staring anew, but I don't think we have the same motives or ultimate vision in mind.

In any event, this is worth following. In the meantime, don't be surprised to hear more soon about the AZ Department of Juvenile Corrections downsizing, consolidating resources, increasing privatization of services, and ultimately being dissolved. I think that's precisely what Director Flanagan was hired to do.

This story was originally published by the Center for Public Integrity
California, often a trendsetter, could make history if it approves
Gov. Jerry Brown’s bid to close all state-run youth prisons and
eliminate its state Division of Juvenile Justice.

Much depends, though, on whether the state’s politically influential
prison guards, probation officers and district attorneys can be
convinced — or forced by legislators — to agree to Brown’s proposal.
That won’t be an easy sell, due to both public-safety arguments and
sure-to-surface haggling over just who pays to house juvenile offenders.

Vowing to restructure government more efficiently, Brown, a Democrat,
wants to close the last three of 11 youth prisons that have long been
attacked by critics as “expensive failures.” If the state phases out the
last three of its aging detention centers, all future young offenders
would be held, schooled and treated by California’s 58 counties.

This is the second time since taking office last year that Brown has
proposed closing the state juvenile division, which is part of its
corrections system. The division’s responsibility has already been slashed dramatically from
10,000 wards in the mid-1990s to about 1,100 in state custody today.
Their numbers may be few, but the cost for keeping those youth in state
custody runs about $200,000-a-year for every ward.

A host of agendas

The drop in numbers of youths in state custody is due in part to a
decline in juvenile crime in California, but also to state legislation
in 2007 that blocked counties from sending nonviolent youth offenders to state-run detention centers.

It was a move driven, some argue, largely by California’s massive
budget deficits and the desire to lower ballooning incarceration costs.
But the decision also dovetailed with an emerging national philosophy
favoring locally-based rehabilitation programs over state-run facilities
that have been plagued with records of neglect, danger and sexual
abuse.

Behind the policy debate: never-ending negotiations over money. The
2007 initiative included millions in state money to counties to devise
and provide more effective treatment closer to wards’ home areas and
families. Last year, after wrangling with Brown, legislators approved a
deal requiring counties to begin paying $125,000 for each ward they sent
to the state, if the state’s revenues didn’t improve.

Sure enough, revenues didn’t improve, and now the counties are
balking at having to pay the $125,000 per ward they owe. And Brown isn’t
collecting. Instead he has resurrected his idea to shut down the state
facilities, and give counties even less than he offered before.

Many, but not all, juvenile justice reformers nationwide are cheering Brown’s announcement this month.
“The same phenomenon is happening on the two coasts,” said Bart Lubow, director of programs for high-risk youth at the Annie E. Casey Foundation. He noted that New York State, too, is shifting care for juveniles more to local custody for cost-control and quality reasons.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s budget proposal this year includes a deal for New
York City to keep most of its offenders locally. Mayor Michael
Bloomberg complained in 2010 that it cost New York City $62
million in 2009 to satisfy a requirement that it pay half the state’s
costs for jailing, on daily average, fewer than 600 youth offenders from
the city.

The state-run jails were far from New York City wards’ families, the
mayor argued, and had dubious records, like California’s, with
recidivism rates of about 80 percent.

Lubow of the Annie E. Casey Foundation said that if Brown is able to
pull off the feat of closing all state facilities, other states will
have a model to follow. “California is at the leading edge of a national
trend,” he said, “to abandon centralized facilities that are
scandal-prone and ineffective.”

What’s best for juvenile offenders?

As it was last year, Brown’s idea is embedded in his proposed 2012-13
state budget announced this month. It will be hashed over publicly and
privately before legislators make a decision by a June 15 deadline.

Most legislators in California are Democrats, as Brown is, but they
are always under pressure not to appear soft on crime. They are also
mindful that California’s correctional workers’ union is a big player in
state politics and a heavy donor to campaigns.

This time, given that only three state juvenile facilities remain,
legislators are perhaps under more pressure not to overburden counties,
which are already coping with fallout from last year’s budget deal.

That deal was considered historic because after years of waffling,
legislators authorized a significant shift of certain low-level adult
felons to county responsibility. The aim was to cut state costs and
satisfy federal court orders to clear California’s overcrowded prisons.

Mark Varela, legislative chairman for the Chief Probation Officers of California,
said his group continues to oppose closing the last three state
juvenile detention centers, although, individually, there are some
probation chiefs in California who favor it and say they are ready.

Varela said opponents’ “concern is that the youth in DJJ [the
Division of Juvenile Justice] represent offenders with a high degree of
sophistication,“ who could have a “negative impact” on lower-level
offenders who might not easily be separated from them in local
facilities.

By mixing the populations, Varela said, the more violent youths, some
of them incarcerated for murder or sex offenses, could endanger or
influence others and undermine their progress.

Hardball in Sacramento

In hearings and official letters last year, the association argued
that if California youth prisons were no longer on option, it was
“inevitable” that for public safety, prosecutors would likely try many
more juveniles as adults and send them to adult state prison. District
attorneys also argued that if counties had to pay the state $125,000 per
ward, more youths would also likely be prosecuted as adults.

Books Not Bars, a prison rights group that backs Brown’s proposal, is preparing to counter the prosecutors’ threat.

The group has crafted a draft bill designed to force counties to pay
for minors they send to state prison, Jennifer Kim, a Books Not Bars
leader, told the Center for Public Integrity. “We are currently shopping
it around the Legislature,” Kim said.

Kim said the bill calls for counties to pay the state the going adult
rate — about $52,500 a year — for each minor put in adult prison based
on the discretion of a prosecutor.

That’s not as much as the $200,000 a year it costs the state for each
ward in existing youth prisons, Kim said. But she said it could help
dissuade counties from trying to avoid keeping young offenders by
putting them in adult prison.

Kim said that while legislators might be vulnerable to soft-on-crime
accusations, they also are under fire after years of chopping education
severely, closing parks and stripping down other services. They need to
justify, Kim said, spending millions on a system that fails to reform
most of its wards, and has a record of documented abuses.

“California could be its own country,” Kim said. “It’s so big. And we
can’t figure out how to handle about 1,000 kids? That’s smaller than
the high school I went to.”

“We’re very disappointed with the proposal. We feel it is an immense
disservice to youth offenders,” JeVaughn Baker, spokesman for the
correctional workers’ union, told the Center for Public Integrity.

Baker said that instead of a complete closure, the union favors
trying to reduce costs per ward, and continuing improvements at the
state-run juvenile prisons, which have been operating for a number of
years under court decree to improve conditions.

However, Baker said, the union also is willing to talk about a
compromise and “wants to be part of the solution.” A meeting is planned
in mid-February among union representatives to discuss more steps toward
continuing reforms to the state facilities, he said.

The correctional workers’ union contributed heavily to Brown’s
election, and continues to have a seat at the table when it comes to
prison reforms. But with California reeling from waves of budget cuts,
it doesn’t have the clout it used to at the state Capitol and has had to
accept changes that cut jobs, said Barry Krisberg, an expert on incarceration policy at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law.

Krisberg, who is also an appointed monitor reporting on improvements
at state-run youth facilities, predicted a tough sell for Brown’s
proposal at the Capitol. “I’m hearing there is not much enthusiasm in
the Legislature for this,” he said.

Krisberg also has his own doubts that the state government should completely phase out its ability to take custody of minors.

He fears that some counties aren’t bluffing when they argue that they are not suited to handle high-level young offenders.

Krisberg said a total closure “would be the most radical juvenile
justice reform in history.” He’d rather see the division shifted to the
state’s Department of Education, possibly, and out of the prison system.

He also noted that county systems for youth offenders are not
scandal-free. The Los Angeles County Probation Department is under
federal order to rein in use of force, including pepper spray, as well
as neglect of wards with mental health problems and suicidal tendencies.

In December, a federal report found that the Los Angeles probation department still fell short of improvements it was ordered to make.

Krisberg said that in the end, he’d prefer to see California keep a
few hundred beds for juveniles at the state level and enact strong
policies and provide adequate funding for monitoring and improving local
treatment.
Because many high-level wards are adults by the time they’ve served
their sentences, what they critically need, Krisberg said, is help from
the state with post-incarceration re-entry to society, including
housing, access to mental-health medication and job placement.

Dan Macallair,
executive director of the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, a
nonpartisan group in San Francisco, is a friend of Krisberg, but differs
with him on this issue, arguing for a shutdown of state facilities that
he says are relics of a failed rehabilitation model.

Besides, Macallair said, the majority of the state’s wards come from
only about a dozen counties, out of 58, that have grown reliant on the
state, and need to be pushed to develop a better infrastructure locally
for rehabilitation. His group’s research,
Macallair said, shows that despite claims to the contrary, California’s
counties have enough room and the ability to appropriately separate
juveniles.

Meanwhile, he said, “you’ve got a state system that’s really hanging by a thumbnail.”

This comes from the DOJ's National Institute of Corrections. Based on their own research and data analysis they argue that it's time to re-evaluate the utility and appropriateness of prosecuting youth in adult criminal courts and detaining them in adult correctional facilities...

Since the world’s first juvenile court was founded in Chicago, our legal
system has recognized a separate mandate to rehabilitate youth with an
approach that is different than adults.1 Today, all 50 states and the
District of Columbia and the federal government have two distinct
systems for dealing with adults and juveniles, and corrections systems
kept pace by developing different systems for dealing with the youth.
While the majority of youth arrested for criminal acts are prosecuted in
state juvenile justice systems, a significant proportion of youth are
handled by adult criminal justice agencies.

It has been estimated that nearly 250,000 youth under age 18 end up in
the adult criminal justice system every year.2 However, little attention
has been directed to how adult corrections systems are managing the
youth offenders that end up in jails, prisons and under community
supervision. To address this information gap, the National Institute of
Corrections (NIC) convened three dozen juvenile justice and adult
corrections experts on June 18th, 2010, to consider some of the known
issues, impacts and opportunities that face corrections systems as they
work to safely and effectively rehabilitate thousands of youth offenders
in the nations’ jails, prisons, probation and parole systems. This
monograph presents the key findings identified during this convening of
experts. Some of the most important findings for corrections officials,
policymakers and the public include:

Youth transferred to the adult corrections system recidivate at a higher
rate than those kept in the juvenile justice system; Pretrial,
post-conviction, and community supervision corrections systems face
challenges keeping youth safe, effectively providing for their services
and supervision, and containing costs required to serve youth
appropriately. Due to these and other challenges corrections systems
face when managing these youth, the transfer of juveniles in adult
institutions might run counter to correctional and rehabilitative goals;
To overcome these challenges, a number of states and localities have
developed innovative ways of managing youth when they have been charged,
convicted and committed to the adult corrections system. These changes
are helping improve public safety, contain costs, successfully
rehabilitate youth and help them transition to adulthood.

By reviewing the issues, impacts and options facing corrections when
they manage youth in the adult system, NIC hopes to raise awareness of
these issues, and focus the field on finding the best ways to curb
juvenile delinquency in correctional settings.

What is known about the issue of juveniles in the adult
corrections system, and where are the gaps in data collection and
information?

1) Approximately a quarter-million youth end up in the adult system
each year, and most end up there due to age of jurisdiction laws.

The National Center on Juvenile Justice has compiled information for
every state and jurisdiction on the three basic ways a youth can end up
in the adult corrections system.

First, public safety systems can set age of jurisdiction laws: in some
states, under some conditions, a youth is automatically under the
jurisdiction of the adult court if they are of a certain age. In New
York and North Carolina, for example, all 16 and 17-year-olds are
considered adults in criminal proceedings. The largest group of
juveniles who end up in the adult system arrive there through are in
through jurisdictional age laws: approximately 247,000 youth under 18
ended up in adult court as a result of jurisdictional age laws in 2007.3

Second, most states have some kind of transfer law: by nature of a
judicial decision, by the nature of the charge the prosecutor chooses to
seek, or, by the nature of the offense, the youth’s case can be
transferred to the adult system. Forty-six states have a judicial waiver
provision, in 15 states, the transfer is through prosecutorial
discretion, 29 states transfer is by categorical exclusion based on the
offense. In some places, if a youth engages in a crime while involved in
a gang or some other behavior, that makes the case eligible for
transfer to the adult court. Juvenile courts transferred approximately
8,500 youth to the adult system in 2007 though judicial waiver statutes.

Finally, some states have a form of blended sentencing, where the
juvenile courts are given power to impose a juvenile disposition, but if
that youth does not succeed, they may then be transferred to the adult
system on the same conviction.

Every public safety system draws the line between being a juvenile and being an adult differently.

Each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia and the federal
government have different mechanisms that can transfer a youth to the
adult court, and the “age of jurisdiction” of the juvenile justice
system varies from place to place. According to the National Center on
Juvenile Justice – a research entity representing juvenile and family
court judges – 23 states and jurisdictions have no minimum age at which a
youth can be transferred to adult court for certain offenses.4 While
some states see juvenile court jurisdiction run through age 15, in
others, you are not an adult for criminal justice purposes until age 18.

There are also various legal mechanisms a judge or prosecutor can choose
to transfer a youth charged with a particular crime to the adult
system. Similarly, the research on adolescent development that has
driven so many recent changes to juvenile justice statutes also doesn’t
provide a “bright line” for drawing when a 15, 16 or 17 youth may have
the mixture of impulse control and reason to be considered an adult,
with some researchers calling to include older youth in the their 20s in
the juvenile justice system.5 In recent Supreme Court rulings on the
juvenile death penalty and juvenile life without parole, the courts have
made changes to the law that suggest, adulthood begins at age 18.
Finally, different juvenile corrections systems have different maximum
ages that they can have youth in custody: in California, Montana, Oregon
and Wisconsin, a youth can be in the custody of the state juvenile
justice system until age 25.

This monograph is focused on all youth under the age of 18. However, we
acknowledge that the way the corrections system works, a youth who
begins with corrections at 16 or 17 can remain under custody into their
twenties: many of the issues and challenges systems face in serving
these youth continue past their 18th birthday.

2) Youth transferred to the adult corrections system recidivate at a higher rate than those kept in the juvenile justice system.

The weight of the research reviewing the public safety impact of sending
youth to the adult corrections system has found that youth tried as
adults are more likely to reoffend, even when controlling for offense
background and other characteristics, than comparable youth retained in
the juvenile system. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Task
Force on Community Preventive Services6 conducted a systematic review
on the transfer of youth to the adult system. The Task Force found:
Transferring juveniles to the adult justice system is counterproductive
as a strategy for deterring subsequent violence: Youth who are
transferred from the juvenile court system to the adult criminal system
are approximately 34% more likely than youth retained in the juvenile
court system to be re-arrested for a violent or other crimes.
Insufficient evidence that transferring youth to the adult criminal
system prevents youth crime: The Task Force found insufficient evidence
to justify assertions that trying youth as adults acts as a deterrent to
prevent youth from committing crime in the first place.

In June 2010, the Department of Justice’s OJJDP released a monograph,
“Juvenile Transfer Laws: An Effective Deterrent to Delinquency?7“The
research bulletin compiled by Professor Richard Redding found that, laws
that make it easier to transfer youth to the adult court system have
little or no general deterrent effect on youth, meaning they do not
prevent youth from engaging in criminal behavior. The report also found
that youth transferred to the adult system are more likely to be
rearrested and to reoffend than youth who committed similar crimes, but
were retained in the juvenile justice system.

3) Little is known about young’s people prior offense backgrounds,
the court processes and decisions that impact them, and how corrections
systems manage youth.

“There are no systems dedicated to collecting data on transfer today.”—Howard Snyder Bureau of Justice Statistics.8

The 51 states and jurisdictions and the federal government each have the
authority to run their respective public safety systems, which usually
includes a partnership between state, county and city courts and
corrections. This reality means that our ability to have national
understanding of what is happening to youth when they are transferred to
the adult system is frustrated by the diverse ways juvenile and adult
corrections operate.

While the public safety system is collecting and analyzing more data
than ever before, there are significant gaps in how data and information
are processed that obscure the national picture around juvenile
transfer. As one national expert recently noted, “the whole pathway is
missing”9 in terms of having national data sets that would allow one to
know, how and why youth end going to the adult system, and what happens
to youth and the systems that serve them, downstream.

Information compiled by national agencies like the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the National Center on Juvenile
justice (OJJDP), the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and information
compiled by state and local entities do sketch out the basics of how
youth end up in the adult corrections system. However, the national
picture one can document from national data has been described as
fragmented and incomplete, with little ability to know exactly how
pretrial, post-conviction and supervision systems are managing this
population.

Among the biggest gaps in information why youth end up in the adult
system, there is very little information that explains the “how’s and
why’s “behind decisions to transfer youth to the adult system.
Currently, only 13 states publicly report the total number of their
transfers, and even fewer report offense profiles, demographic
characteristics, or details regarding processing and sentencing.10

Critical information that currently is not collected or analyzed on
juveniles who are transferred to the adult system on national basis
includes:

How a youth’s case is resolved?: From the decision to prosecute the case
in the adult system, to what charges youth are ultimately convicted of,
and what their sentence is, little information on the court process are
available. How many youth who start in the adult system return to the
juvenile system?: There is no information on how many youth end up back
in the juvenile system through blended sentencing, or if their charges
are dropped, and recharged as a juvenile. When youth are transferred,
what kind of services do they receive?: While we do know youth are
required to receive certain kinds of educational services wherever they
are incarcerated, there is no information on the kinds of services,
interventions and programming youth may be receiving while in custody,
or when they return to the community. How many youth are on adult
probation and parole?: We do not know how many youth are on adult or
juvenile probation and parole as result of an adult conviction, the
nature of that supervision, and what kinds of services or interventions
they might be receiving.

4) On any given day, there are 10,000 youth in adult prisons and
adult jails. Most of these youth in adult custody were convicted of
robbery and assault, and most and the vast majority will return to the
community before age 21.

Data from the BJS that looks at the age of youth in adult prisons and
jails has shown that, in 2009, there were 2,778 youth are in adult
prisons, and approximately 7,220 in adult jails.11

Most youth who end up in the adult system were convicted of robbery or
aggravated assault: these may be serious crimes, but these offenses
generally do not carry the longest prison terms. A monograph reviewing
the research on youth in the adult system for OJJDP, of those youth who
end up in the custody of the adult system, 80 percent will be released
from prison before their 21st birthday, and 95 percent will be released
before their 25th birthday.12 However, there are also 2,589 people
serving Life-Without Parole for a crime they were convicted of when they
were a juvenile.13

5) Youth of color have been disproportionately represented among those youth transferred to the adult corrections system

As is the case in the juvenile justice system, youth of color are
disproportionately impacted by the changes in statute that allow for
their transfer to the adult system. African American youth make up 30%
of those arrested while they only represent 17% of the overall youth
population. At the other end of the system, African-American youth are
62% of the youth prosecuted in the adult criminal system and are nine
times more likely than white youth to receive an adult prison
sentence.14 While information is harder to obtain on the Hispanic
population due to the challenges in compiling criminal justice data on
this population, Hispanic youth have been found to be 43% more likely
than white youth to be waived to the adult system and 40% more likely to
be admitted to adult prison.15 Compared to white youth, Native American
youth are 1.5 times more likely to receive out-of-home placement and
are 1.5 times more likely to be waived to the adult criminal system.
Nationwide, the average rate of new commitments to adult state prison
for Native youth is 1.84 times that of white youth.16

6) Many youth end up in the adult system as a result of plea
agreements, and are convicted of offenses in the adult court with
reduced sentences.

While every state is different, research done on how juvenile transfer
laws work in a number of states have found that most youth who face an
adult charge are not convicted of that charge. Instead, the court
process that sees a youth charged with an adult offense – an act that
can move their case to the adult system – will also see these youth
plead to a lesser included offense that carries a different penalty. In
some cases and places, a judge may have an opportunity to return the
case to the juvenile justice system for sentencing, but the youth may
still be detained in pretrial as they await their disposition. One
expert convened by NIC reported, as many as 75 percent of those
transferred to adult court as a result of a charge are eventually
convicted of a lesser offense.17 Plea agreements may result in a prison
term, probation, or depending on the rules in a given state, transfer
back to the juvenile justice system.

Friday, February 3, 2012

Excellent editorial by a Tucson Attorney, as posted in the Nogales
International. The process by which this happens across the country is
complicated and fragmented, making it difficult to track the impact of
such laws on crime, populations and communities. Nevertheless, the US Department of Justice has concluded
that transferring juveniles to the adult criminal justice system has
had no positive effect on reducing juvenile crime. In fact, recidivism
tends to be worse when kids are placed in the adult criminal justice
system. Arguably, we harm more people than we protect this way.

By Veneranda Aguirre | Guest EditorialNogales InternationalPosted: Friday, February 3, 2012 8:44 am
In election years, candidates want to look tough on crime. In
1997, as a Nogales High School senior, I wrote an opinion article
for this paper about Arizona's attempt to pass a law permitting
prosecutors to charge minors as adults for committing serious
crimes. Laws like this are generally known as juvenile transfer
laws.

In interviewing several officials in the juvenile justice system, I
learned that the state had been providing vital services to
criminal youths to assist them in reentering society, such as
education, career guidance, and family therapy, which the adult
system did not. I predicted that the law, if passed, would harm
juvenile offenders and fail its intended effect.

After my article ran, then NHS principal Marcelino Varona pulled me
out of class to lecture me on the need to be tough on crime and how
wrong my op-ed was. Later that year, Arizona and 21 other states
enacted similar laws. Currently, 45 states have juvenile transfer
laws.

The intent behind these laws is to deter juveniles from offending
and incarcerated juveniles from re-offending. But as an article in
the Jan. 29 Arizona Daily Star ("Serious youth offenders faring
poorly when put in adult system") points out, Arizona has failed to
stem the tide of crime by prosecuting minors as adults.

Juvenile transfer laws have little impact on juveniles' initial
decisions to break the law. Why? Most juveniles are unaware of
these laws, or they wrongly believe that they will not be
prosecuted as adults. Furthermore, juveniles are not deterred from
committing serious crimes even when they know severity of a
potential sentence.

As for those minors already in the adult system, six large-scale
studies have found that these individuals are more likely to commit
crimes than those tried in juvenile court. One study found that
transferred juveniles in New York had a 100 percent re-arrest rate
compared to 47 percent of juveniles treated as such in New Jersey.
Researchers also found that juveniles put into "deep-end juvenile
programs" received the most benefit largely because these programs
provided inten sive, long-term job skills training and treatment
and longer sentences, which gave them more time to consider their
futures and the consequences of reoffending. Conversely, juveniles
who were dumped into the adult system reported intent not to
reoffend because the experience had been so horrible. Even then, 61
percent of those surveyed said that their prison sentences had no
impact on whether they would reoffend. Some juveniles even admitted
to learning more about criminal enterprise while in adult
prison.

As one former inmate told the Star, "Prison is not a college to go
to.... You learn the worst lessons there. It's a mean, vile place.
When you're in the milieu of meanness, how else are you going to
come out? There are no good values being taught in prison."

While proponents of the law point out that these transferred
juveniles have been given many chances in the juvenile system
before being transferred to the adult system, that fact only shows
that Arizona is failing its youth and sealing their doom by not
providing the necessary guidance and support systems juveniles need
to become useful members of society. Instead, under the current
law, we are merely churning out more criminals and more violent
criminals.

The Arizona juvenile transfer law is broken. Being "tough on crime"
does not prevent crime. It just makes it tougher to stop the cycle
of criminal behavior. Repealing this law and investing in
prevention, education, guidance and support are the only means of
breaking this vicious cycle.

(Aguirre is a Nogales native and University of Arizona graduate who
currently works as an attorney in Tucson.)

Washington, D.C. (July 18, 2011) – America’s children have fallen further behind in the last year in a range of leading indicators according to The State of America’s Children 2011,
a new report from the Children’s Defense Fund. With unemployment,
housing foreclosures, and hunger at historically high levels, children’s
well-being is in jeopardy. In the United States one in five children is
poor and children are our poorest age group. In 2009, millions of
children fell into poverty due to the economic downturn, an increase of
almost 10 percent, the largest single year rise since 1960. Today, 15.5
million children are adrift in a sea of poverty and every 32 seconds
another child is born poor. Two-thirds of poor children live in families
in which at least one family member works. The gap between rich and
poor families has continued to grow. Income gains for the bottom 90
percent were completely wiped out by the recession, leaving the average
income for the bottom 90 percent at its lowest level in more than a
decade.

This report also shows continuing and increasing inequality in our
country. Particularly striking is the fact that children of color, who
are now 44 percent of America’s children, will be the majority of
children in 2019 – just eight years from now. In nine states and the
District of Columbia, this is already the case. Millions of poor
children of color are at increased risk of dying before their first
birthday, living in poverty and extreme poverty, being uninsured and in
poor health, lagging behind in early childhood development, lacking a
quality education, dropping out of school and being excluded by zero
tolerance school discipline policies, being stuck in foster care without
permanent families, ending up in the juvenile and criminal justice
systems, being caught in the high school and college completion gap,
being unemployed or being killed by guns. A Cradle to Prison Pipeline
haunts them from birth to adulthood.

“Black children are facing one of the worst crises since slavery, and
in many areas, Hispanic and American Indian children are not far
behind. The alarm bells should be ringing across our country. If we
compare just Black child well-being to child well-being in other
nations, 70 nations have a lower infant mortality rate including
Thailand, Costa Rica, Lebanon and Serbia, ” said Marian Wright Edelman,
president of the Children’s Defense Fund. “This report should be a
wake-up call to our political leaders and every citizen. We need to get
our priorities straight. We must not cut funding for programs benefiting
children including education and other survival investments for poor
children while protecting massive federal subsidies for corporations and
individuals?”

The best hope children have of lifting themselves out of poverty is a quality education with a good job at the end of the line. The State of America’s Children 2011
details how our schools are failing our children. American education,
once the envy of the world, is in dire straits. More than 60 percent of
fourth, eighth and 12th grade public school students are reading or
doing math below grade level. For Black and Hispanic students in these
grades, it is nearly 80 percent or more. Our children are losing rather
than gaining ground.

The State of America’s Children 2011 is a comprehensive
annual report produced by the Children’s Defense Fund using the latest
data available. The report includes a foreword by Marian Wright Edelman,
“Moments in America”—a snapshot of children each day in America, and 11
chapters on the well-being of children in America.

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

The answers to those of my questions below which can be derived from criminal and court records are in this new article by the Arizona Republic.
I'm choosing not to re-print it here because the article positions
Forrest's behavior problems in a way that seems to justify her being
sent to prison in the first place...like she was just a "bad girl". I
don't accept that premise. She acted out the way children do when
troubled...and troubled children, in my book, do not belong in adult
prison.

So,
if you plan to contact either the judge or prosecutor in this case, do
check out the AZ Republic article linked to above to see just the
surface of what they were looking at, through the eyes of the criminal
justice system. Before you make up your mind what to write, though, read
the note below from this friend of Forrest's family as well...

Forrest Day, at 16.

UPDATED 9/31/12:

At the age of 16, despite being too young to be trusted to drink, drive, smoke, vote, or even get away with skipping school, Forrest Day was prosecuted as an adult
for the death of her 8 month old baby. As recounted in the article
below, she put her son in the bathtub then got distracted elsewhere in
the house by writing poetry - behavior characteristic of a child. It's
not even as if she went out partying and left him home alone, beat or
shook him, or even filled up the tub.

It doesn't
appear that Forrest was even accused of intending to hurt her child.
You don't have to will a person harm in order to be charged with
negligent homicide, of course, though I suspect they hit her so hard to
begin with in order to coerce her into a plea deal on the felony child
abuse charge - which I also think was a stretch in this circumstance.

Forrest was sentenced to probation, and then to prison, by Michael Kemp,
a judge from Juvenile Court. I can't tell from the records who actually
made the decision to let the state prosecute her as an adult, though.
If you have questions about why he did what he did and what he thinks
about charging children like her as adults - kids with no criminal
record or intent - direct them to him. He can be reached at:

For
those of you who have never been on probation or parole, it's not as
easy as you may think to abide by. Forrest violated hers within a year,
just before her 18th birthday. I don't know what she did to get into
trouble with the court - she apparently wasn't charged with a new crime.
She did get pregnant again, though, and wanted to keep her unborn daughter - forbidden by the judge. She was only allowed to see her at the hospital once she was born.

Forrest
was committed to the custody of the AZ Department of Corrections on
November 10, 2010, soon after having her second child. For breaking her
probation, Kemp gave her 3 1/2 years in state prison on the original
child abuse conviction. For neglecting her child at the age of 16, the
rest of us condemned her to live - and die - with the guilt and stigma
of killing her son as if she had intended to. We just can't seem to dole
out enough punishment in Arizona to satisfy the electorate here, and it
looks like we're letting the legislature get away with refusing to address sentencing reform again this session, so we do share some responsibility here...

Sadly,
Forrest committed suicide on January 27, 2012 at Perryville Prison on
the maximum security yard, Lumley. She was only 19 years old. Hers was
one of three prison suicides last week, in fact; she was the youngest.
Our condolences go out to Forrest's
parents and other loved ones. I can't think of anything more devastating than surviving the loss of one's child.

This weekend
a friend of Forrest's family left a comment at the bottom of another post, speaking
to the beautiful soul she knew her to be, that is better placed here:

"I am a close personal friend of the Day family and I want to thank you
for trying to bring this tragedy to the people's attention. Forrest
wasn't a bad person, she had a lapse in judgement, just like millions of
other 16 year old kids do every day. She was funny, kind, loving,
artistic and so much more. I believe that the state wanted to use her as
an example to other young mothers and it backfired horribly. This young
girl never should have been put behind bars in an adult prison with the
women who actually committed murder freely and willingly. She did not
take her babies life intentionally, it was just a horrible accident.

Accidents happen every day to a multitude of people, for instance the
mother whose 2 year old baby got out of the house 4 years ago and tumble
onto Thomas road and was hit and killed by a car. The mother had
several children and didn't notice the baby gone until it was too late,
but she never got charged for any crime.

I want people everywhere to
know that Forrest was an amazing young woman who wanted to go to
culinary school to make her life better, but she will never get that
opportunity now. I also wanted to say that Forrest gave birth to a
beautiful baby girl right before she was incarcerated and the baby is
the spitting image of her mommy. The family has custody of the baby, and
I can only imagine that they feel very blessed by this wonder born from
tragedy. Thank you so much for letting me speak my mind. You are doing a
wonderful thing here!"

A 16-year-old Avondale girl facing felony child abuse and negligent
homicide charges was distracted by writing poetry while her 8-month-old
son drowned in the bathtub, according to a police report.

Forrest Day, pleaded not guilty at her arraignment Wednesday,
following her indictment on April 23. Day will be tried as an adult and
is due back in court June 18.

Day's son, Elijah James Day, drowned about 3:30 p.m. Feb. 21 after
she set him down in the bathtub, turned the water on with the drain
unplugged and left the room, according to the Avondale police report.

Day told investigators she was looking for a towel but got
sidetracked with poems she was writing, the report states. After
checking on Elijah after about five minutes, she said she went into her
bedroom, saw her poetry book and started reading some old poems. She
said she was gone for about 20 minutes this time.

Day said she went from her room to the living room, to her sister's
room, and then outside on the back porch trying to find a quiet place to
write. She eventually went into her parents' bedroom and closed the
door behind her, according to police documents.

Day's 9-year-old brother and his friend were playing video games in
the living room when the friend heard the water running in the bathroom
and told her brother. Her brother went to the bathroom and found Elijah
floating face down in the water.

He pulled him out of the water and yelled for his sister, the report
says. Day tried CPR but when it didn't work, she took him across the
street to a neighbor's house. The neighbor called police and
administered CPR until police arrived.

Elijah was unresponsive to attempts to revive him, according to the
report. He was airlifted to St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in
Phoenix, where he was pronounced dead at 4:36 p.m.

Day was "hysterical and crying," the report states. She told police
she gave Elijah a bath almost daily but this was the first time she left
him alone in the bathtub.

She faces one count of Class 2 felony child abuse, a dangerous crime
against children; and one count of negligent homicide, a Class 4 felony.

They really stay on top of legislation and duke it out at the capitol for youth each year, and there are a lot of good reports and statistics
on their site for anyone interested in the issue of juvenile justice in
Arizona, so check them out. If you are media and have questions about
any of these issues, call Amy Kobeta at the CAA, not me. She's their
vice president, and handles communications, messaging, etc. Her contact
info is:

Governor
Brewer's budget proposal continues most of the past cuts to children's
health, education, and security. KidsCare and child care remain frozen.
There is no state funding for full-day Kindergarten or preschool and no
inflation funding for K-12 schools. Grandparents raising grandkids
continue to go without help and the poorest mothers and children
continue to be left behind.

Her
budget uses current year funds to pay off some debt early, to upgrade
some technology, and to build new prison beds. She also proposes
investments in specific areas of behavioral health, early reading, and
child protective services. Her proposal offers no plan for balancing the
budget in future years -- no proposal to meet state priorities as the
temporary sales tax expires and new tax cuts kick in. Ongoing revenues
remain below ongoing expenditures -- even with the budget cuts in place.

Youth Exposed to Domestic Violence:

A handbook for the juvenile justice system to enhance assessment and intervention strategies for youth from violent homes (2003 pdf).

What about me: Seeking to understand a child's view of violence in the family.

Centre for Children & Families in the Justice System (Ontario, 2004 pdf)

Best Practices of Youth Violence Prevention: Sourcebook for Community Action

Centers for Disease Control

Growing up in North America Report Series (2008):

The well-being of children in Canada, the United States, and Mexico

Arizona fact sheets, resources.

...a comprehensive effort to protect minority youth in the justice system and to promote rational and effective juvenile justice policies...

W. Haywood Burns Institute: Arizona Profile

Strategies for reducing ethnic and racial disparities in the juvenile justice system.

Maricopa County: Children's Action Alliance Report

Racial Disproportionality in the Juvenile Justice System in Maricopa County(2008)
In most juvenile justice systems across the country, youth of color are overrepresented.
Data examined for Maricopa County show that at each stage of the juvenile justice system and as consequences become more restrictive, the gap between Anglo youth and youth of color becomes much greater.
This report presents the data and asks important questions for decision-makers and stakeholders to examine why this is happening so that strategies can be developed to assure equal justice for all youth.

Rodriguez: Multilevel analysis of juvenile court processes...

Community characteristics and racial disparities in Arizona's juvenile courts (2008).

OJJDP: Disproportionate Minority Contact (2009 pdf)

Addressing disproportionate minority contact in juvenile justice.

Race Matters Toolkit: Unequal opportunities in juvenile justice

Annie E. Casey Foundation

Immigrant Youth Justice Initiative

Children in Immigrant families in Arizona (2009)

Annie E. Casey Foundation (pdf fact sheet)

America's Invisible Children: Latino youth and the failure of justice.

Campaign for Youth Justice

One Sky Center: Publications

American Indian/Alaskan Native National Resource Center for Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services